Bug 141747 - New files in a patch are not displayed, only the changed files
Summary: New files in a patch are not displayed, only the changed files
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Alias: None
Product: kompare
Classification: Applications
Component: general (show other bugs)
Version: unspecified
Platform: RedHat Enterprise Linux Linux
: NOR normal
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Kompare developers
URL:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2007-02-15 18:23 UTC by Jim Peters
Modified: 2009-03-11 01:24 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

See Also:
Latest Commit:
Version Fixed In:


Attachments

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Jim Peters 2007-02-15 18:23:51 UTC
Version:            (using KDE KDE 3.5.5)
Installed from:    RedHat RPMs

Running kompare on two directories, it correctly displays both changed and new files (i.e. a file missing in one tree and present in the other).  However, if a patch generated with a recursive diff (e.g. 'diff -r -u') and passed to kompare, then only the changed files are displayed, not the new files.  Viewing the patch file with less, the contents of the new files are very clearly present.  For some reason kompare is skipping over those parts of the patch file and not displaying them.

This means that kompare can be used to view the changes in an arbitrary patch file, but the user has to then read the patch file once again with something else (e.g. less), to be sure not to miss any sections that create new files (i.e. that didn't exist previously).

It would be better if kompare displayed all parts of the patch file.
Comment 1 Jim Peters 2007-02-15 18:34:10 UTC
Oops sorry, the patches weren't actually created with 'diff -N -r -u'.  They were created with something else that doesn't include a correct timestamp in the diff headers.  So this is not your problem.  SORRY!
Comment 2 Otto Bruggeman 2007-02-16 11:00:30 UTC
Reopening. Kompare should not be so pedantic about the timestamp in the header. If it is there it should use it, if not it should ignore the timestamp but definitely not ignore the entire patch.
Comment 3 Otto Bruggeman 2009-03-11 01:24:17 UTC
It looks like this has been fixed since it works for me.